Skip to comments.McCain alarms base with abortion comment
Posted on 08/14/2008 8:54:39 PM PDT by Alter Kaker
Top social conservative leaders in key battleground states are urging John McCain not to pick a running mate who supports abortion rights, warning of dire consequences from a Republican base already unenthused about their nominee.
McCains comments Wednesday to the Weekly Standards Stephen Hayes that former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridges pro-abortion rights views wouldnt necessarily rule him out quickly found their way into the in-boxes of Christian conservatives. For those who have been anxiously awaiting McCains pick as a signal of his ideological intentions, there was deep concern that their worst fears about the Arizona senator may be realized.
It absolutely floored me, said Phil Burress, head of the Ohio-based Citizens for Community Values. It would doom him in Ohio.
Burress emailed about a dozen pro-family leaders he knows outside Ohio and forwarded it to three McCain aides tasked with Christian conservative outreach.
That choice will end his bid for the presidency and spell defeat for other Republican candidates, Burress wrote in the message.
He and other Ohio conservatives met privately with McCain in June, and while the nominee didnt promise them an anti-abortion rights running mate, his staff said they could almost guarantee that would be the case, Burress recalled.
Now, Burress said, hes not even sure [Christian conservatives] would vote for him let alone work for him if he picked a pro-abortion running mate.
James Muffett, head of Michigans Citizens for Traditional Values, met with McCain along with a handful of other Michigan-based social conservatives Wednesday night.
A good portion of us were urging him to pick a pro-life running mate, Muffett said, noting that they were doing so before even getting wind of the Standard story. That choice would go a long way to solidify his credentials.
Muffett said McCain didnt offer any promises on the issue, but rather reiterated his anti-abortion record and assured them that he was aware of how critical the base was to the electoral success of Republican presidents dating back to Ronald Reagan.
To select a running mate who supports abortion rights would be wrong-headed, short-sighted, fracture the Republican Party and not allow us to capitalize on the Democratic Partys fracture right now, Muffett argued.
If he does that, it makes our job 100 times harder. It would dampen enthusiasm at a time when evangelicals are looking for ways to gin up enthusiasm.
McCain, Muffett said, got that message in their meeting.
Some people in the movement say it would be the kiss of death. He heard that in the room last night.
With polls showing McCain and Obama still neck-and-neck in many competitive states, conservatives argue that their candidate must turn out Christian conservatives in large numbers to win.
In Iowa, for example, many in the GOP say Bush won in 2004 after losing there in 2000 because he bolstered turnout among the religious right in the conservative western part of the state and in exurban areas.
Bush only won by 10,000 votes, recalled Steve Scheffler, president of the Iowa Christian Alliance and a Republican committeeman from the state. Youre going to have to have a huge turnout of that base again for McCain to win.
And, Scheffler noted, its not just a matter of ensuring that social conservatives vote picking a supporter of abortion rights could erode McCains volunteer base.
Ninety percent of the workforce for Bush in 04 came out of that constituency, he said, alluding to the Christian right. Picking a Ridge or a [Joseph] Lieberman would not be helpful at all.
Rep. Peter Hoekstra, who represents a conservative, heavily Dutch district in western Michigan where Republicans traditionally pile up huge margins, said a pro-abortion rights running mate would be problematic.
Thats not where theyd want him going, Hoekstra said of the party base.
McCains campaign sought to tamp down the uproar, suggesting the candidate had merely been overly expansive about a sensitive topic and hadnt intended to float a trial balloon.
The point that McCain was making is that people can differ on one issue and still be a vital member of our party, said an aide. The fact that Governor Ridge is not perfectly in line with the party platform does not make him any less of a Republican.
In the interview, McCain said the pro-life position is one of the important aspects or fundamentals of the Republican Party.
And I also feel that and I'm not trying to equivocate here that Americans want us to work together. You know, Tom Ridge is one of the great leaders and he happens to be pro-choice. And I don't think that that would necessarily rule Tom Ridge out [for vice-president].
He added: I think it's a fundamental tenet of our party to be pro-life, but that does not mean we exclude people from our party that are pro-choice. We just have a albeit strong but just it's a disagreement. And I think Ridge is a great example of that.
The GOP base aside, some observers believe that picking an outside-the-box running mate such as Lieberman could help McCain with the broad middle of the country who are fed up with the political status quo and enable him to pick off even more Clinton backers.
This move to a pro-choice running mate such as Lieberman could help reshape his message to appeal to swing voters, said Doug Schoen, a Democratic pollster who worked for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg when he was a Republican and has written a book about moving away from the two-party system. The right-wing is not going anywhere and choice is a key issue for over-40 women who voted for Hillary in the primaries.
But to some in the GOP who supported other candidates in the primary and are having trouble mustering much enthusiasm for McCain, the mere mention of a pro-choice running mate is disheartening.
A lot of the troops here are on the fence or disappointed, said Elizabeth Sipfle, a Michigan Republican and former leader of Mike Huckabees grassroots Hucks Army organization who contacted Politico to register her concern. Lets not get our blood boiling.
Be smart, she urged McCain. Theres a big group here thats already feeling marginalized.
Read Between the Lines.
No Abortion Litmus Test for Vice President means No Abortion Litmus Test For a Supreme Court Justice.
I believe that Government is not to blame for this wholesale slaughter of the innocent. Moral decisions come from Bible-Torah literacy, (Psalm 139), not from legislation. Roe v. Wade aside, we have not been forced to kill our babies. Abortion statistics are staggering because we (yes, I mean Judeo-Christians) have chosen to murder our unborn.
I believe that liberals have used the abortion debate to divide and conquer. We need to stop this naive militancy. In Deuteronomy 11, God tells us clearly how to raise moral people.
And you shall teach them (Gods statutes and ordinances V1) to your sons, talking of them when you sit in your house and when you walk along the road and when you lie down and when you rise up. V19.
Though separation of church and state cannot be found in the Constitution, the following might be a better way to view the concept Morality is personal and none of the Governments business. Anything otherwise is kin to dictating religion.
I believe that the Government is a business and should be run as a business. We should elect a fiscally conservative leader. We should elect a military leader. We should elect a Godly leader. Moreover, we should be informed and not easily swayed by an anti-American agenda disguised as concern. It is nothing but pathetic, alarmist rhetoric. Abortion and terrorism are both wars against humanity. But the battleground for the unborn should be waged from the home (church), not the Supreme Court!
McDole is a douche bag, no doubt about it.
Thats not where theyd want him going, Hoekstra said of the party base.”
Ha! As if McCain cares what we think.
He had better not dare choose Tom Ridge or Loserman.
If McCain picks a pro-abortion vp he is toast. There is nothing that will get evangelicals to support him after that.
Comrade Juan McNuts is not Conservative.
Sorry, but McCain is a tool and an enabler of the Left.
I’ll vote for the jerk, but I’ll need a dose of Ipecac and a bath afterwards.
Not generally in this country, but most definitely the case in China.
In this country, it is kind of borderline when an organization such as Planned Parenthood, which receives government i.e. taxpayer money, encourages and facilitates a teenage mother's abortion without her parent's knowledge.
That is a strange position. What is law, except legislated morality.
Given your argument, murder in all forms would be legal.
Both literally and figuratively. If McCain picks a pro-abort VP, it would be the first time in my adult life I do not vote for the Republican--after nine times of doing so.
Like I said in an earlier thread, even if he doesn't end up picking a pro-abortion VP (which would ensure his loss), the fact that he says he'd even consider it is a real problem for me.
I totally agree... on principle that is.
In America we have a Christian standard that was the original intent of the founders. They saw we would fall without that moral code.
Now if the legislature and judicial branch of government rule that killing babies is alright, we need to kick them out and start over with people who believe more in our original focus... a God-centered nation.
On the other hand, I don’t expect the government to teach my children not to have abortions any more than I believe it is the governments responsibility to raise and educate my children. We are responsible for ourselves and anyone else we bring into this world.
If our children are deceived it’s because they either took advantage of free will, or that we failed in training them up in the way they should go.
You have spoken mighty well.
Exactly. It says that if he's President he'd probably consider a pro-abort attorney general, pro-abort district court judges, pro-abort appellate court judges, and pro-abort supreme court justices. Abortion is clearly not an issue McCain that cares about, and he's not even interested in listening to his base.
Ok We did not send him money.
If he chooses as his VP candidate someone who supports abortion, that’s it, I won’t vote for him. No ifs, ands, or buts. Murder of babies is where I draw the line. I’ve forced myself to just get over it on his immigration stance, his globull warming policies, and his back-stabbing of conservatives. I’m already ashamed of myself, but I despise Obama. If he caves on the abortion issue, that’s it, that’s my line in the sand.
I’m just saying this post Christian nation has no
authority to decide if there is life in the womb.
We’ve lost our way. Now that we are secular, let’s
stick to nation management and leave moral instruction
If McCain picks a pro-choice VP candidate, I’ll probably sit this one out.
It would be both a slap in the face and a knife in the back to grass roots supporters.
[... If our children are deceived its because they
either took advantage of free will, or that we failed
in training them up in the way they should go...]
I didn’t expect my comments to be understood. But I
If McCain picks a Ridge or a Giuliani, then THIS right-winger is "not going" . . . to work or donate or recommend or vote for McCain. I will write in Fred Thompson.
Obama is so bad, I’m considering voting for McCain even though he is an absolute disaster.
But if he chooses a pro-abortion running mate, forget it. I WILL NOT VOTE FOR SUCH A TICKET. Bad enough to have four years or eight years of McCain. Now they want to groom a pro-abort for the next run?
Kinda like-kills a baby.
You’re in a losing battle trying to explain this one. You are exactly right, but it’s hard to fathom because our thinking is so nationalized.
It’s happened incrementally enough that even the most conservative can’t see it. We went from states rights to federal rights in a blink and I’m not sure there’s a way back out to complete personal responsibility.
I do take responsibility for myself, my family, my faith and my children... sounds like you do too.
The best we can do right now is to speak the truth and keep on leading... Your screen name says it all.
“No Abortion Litmus Test for Vice President means No Abortion Litmus Test For a Supreme Court Justice.”
Very correct, but also, not big news to most of us.
My guess is that McCain is polling in Pennsylvania now to see if Tom Ridge helps him. If it is yes, I think he will go ahead with the pick.
Ridge is going to be on Fox New Sunday with Chris Wallace . . .another screen test to see how he does.
I noticed that Eric Cantor actually loses votes for McCain in Virginia.
There is no way any Supreme Court nominee could get through the Democrat Senate if he announced he was pro-life. He has to keep quiet about it, like Roberts and Alito did.
This is shocking!
That McCain has a base, that is.
“No Abortion Litmus Test for Vice President means No Abortion Litmus Test For a Supreme Court Justice.”
Hey Gordon... welcome to Free Republic.
Hey Das, some class just walked into the joint.
For McCain, it’s a political, not a moral decision. He needs to win the middle if he is to win the election. He figures he’s got the conservatives in his pocket (just like Obama has the liberals). They are both fighting over the middle undecideds.
In the end, McCain may choose a pro-life VP. But if he chooses a pro-abortion VP, part of the reason will be he thinks he will gain more votes in the middle than he will lose on the right.
Me too, I mean I’ll write in someone-but I won’t vote for anyone who supports the “right” to take innocent life. That’s it, and I think a so-called Republican candidate who has already asked conservatives to swallow so much, has a nerve to push this issue. It will be his bridge too far.
Gracias, Senor Outsider... (Practicin’ for the reign of the Obamessiah)
And I appreciate the clarification. Glad to be here.
“There is no way any Supreme Court nominee could get through the Democrat Senate if he announced he was pro-life. He has to keep quiet about it, like Roberts and Alito did.”
The issue for a justice is whether the supposed right to privacy (not found in the constitution) covers a women’s right to kill her own baby prior to delivery. Not only is Roe v Wade immoral it is also bad law. A justice need not say exactly how they would render on a possible new case, as they would prejudice themselves against potential cases without the facts.
The truth will be seen in the actual pick.
Everything else is just politics. Can anyone imagine any reason why McCain might want to be polite to Ridge?
That would be a major miscalculation. If there is one issue that would push conservatives over the edge, this is it.
[... Are you saying that the Supreme Court of the United States really has no moral authority over just what constitutes a human being?...]
Without the counsel of Scripture, the Supreme Court cannot be trusted to make moral decisions.
So the answer is yes.
McCain said nothing about judges, you are misrepresenting him.
The veep has no power to nominate judges.
Personally, I'm getting to the opinion Lieberman would be a good choice for veep. Provides the across the aisle cred to counter Obama, is a Jackson type Democrat, would not be able to run as either a Republican or Democrat in the 2012 primaries.
A McCain/Lieberman ticket would be the serious guys running against the amateurs. Palin and Jindahl are up and comers, but need more experience. Ridge is qualified but boring, and is a negative with Evangelicals, Pawlenty is OK, but nothing more, and Cantor whom I like is a bit of a crap shoot: Seems to offer no help in VA, but is a true conservative.
Romney seems to me like the real wildcard. Good campaigner, but with little magnetism, probably help in MI, UT, and CO, but then there's the Mormonism thing.
Thanks for the welcome. After the last couple of posts I’ve commented on, I’m just glad to see some God-fearin’ folks left on the conservative side.
Keep the faith (and share some too)!